UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA 

COLLEGE    OF    AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL   EXPERIMENT  STATION 

CIRCULAR  No.  281 

J  > MEMBER,  1924 

The  Results  of  a  Survey  to  Determine  the  Cost  of 
Producing  Beef  in  California 

By  E.  L.  ADAMS 


INTRODUCTION 

A  century  and  a  half  of  activities  centering  in  the  production  of 
beef  in  California  have  seen  recorded  many  changes  in  methods  of 
handling  cattle,  in  breeds,  and  in  details  of  business  and  organization. 
The  cattle  of  Mission  days,  slender-legged,  sharp-nosed,  dun  or  brindle 
colored,  light  of  weight,  deer-like  animals  of  restless,  uneasy,  suspicious 
temperament,  fleet  of  foot,  lean  and  tough  of  carcass,  have  given  way 
before  the  introduction  of  better  breeds  and  better  blood-lines;  the 
free,  open,  untitled  ranges  of  pioneer  times  have  succumbed  in  the 
advancement  of  more  intensive  farming ;  the  independent  selling  by 
individuals,  operating  each  in  his  own  way,  has  been  replaced  by 
corporation  and  cooperative  methods. 

A  business  as  it  grows  and  expands  tends  to  develop  new  problems, 
and  must  make  readjustments  to  keep  pace  with  the  times.  This  is 
constantly  true  of  agriculture  in  general  and  of  the  beef  producing 
business  in  particular. 

Today  more  attention  is  being  paid  to  the  business  phases  of  beef 
production,  and  data  concerning  the  financial  side  of  the  business  are 
now  being  sought  by  those  interested  in  the  production,  preparation, 
sale,  and  consumption  of  beef. 

In  a  belief  that  more  complete  knowledge  of  costs  of  production  is 
vital  as  a  starting  point  in  gaining  a  better  understanding  of  the 
business,  for  use  in  organizing,  reorganizing  and  administering  a 
business  involving  over  1,400,000  head  of  cattle,  worth  more  than 
$48,000,000,*  members  of  the  California  Cattlemen's  Association  asked 
the  College  of  Agriculture  to  conduct  a  study  into  the  costs  of  pro- 
ducing beef  animals  under  California  conditions.  As  a  result  of  this 
request,  data  were  collected  in  detail  from  typical  California  cattle 
ranges  and  ranches  to  provide  a  basis  for:    (1)    Presenting  actual 

*  See  p.  26,  "California  Crop  Report,  1923.''  Special  Publication  No.  43  of 
State  of  California  Department  of  Agriculture. 


2  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

figures  of  costs  of  production;  (2)  calculating  unit  cost  factors 
involved  in  common  methods  of  producing  beef,  and  (3)  making  sug- 
gestions that  may  help  individual  cattlemen  to  obtain  greater  profits. 

Data  were  obtained  from  a  gross  acreage  of  484,283  acres  of  range, 
utilized  by  15,431  stock  cows,  833  bulls,  10,703  calves,  10,007  yearlings, 
9850  2-year-olds,  1651  3-year-olds,  a  total  of  32,211  head  raised  either 
for  sale  or  for  retention  as  breeding  stock. 

Records,  complete  enough  for  tabulating,  were  obtained  from 
thirty-two  ranches  located  in  seventeen  counties  as  follows : 

No.  of  cattle  No.  of  cattle 

County  ranches  County  ranches 

San  Benito  5  Butte  1 

San  Luis  Obispo 2  Tehama  3 

Santa  Barbara  4  Shasta  3 

Ventura  1  Trinity    1 

Los  Angeles  2  Siskiyou  2 

Tulare  1  Modoc   1 

Fresno 1  Humboldt   2 

Madera 1  Mendocino 1 

Yuba  1 

This  list  includes  a  total  of  14  ranges  located  generally  in  the 
southern  coast  district,  two  in  the  northern  coast  district,  eleven  in 
the  central  valleys,  and  five  in  the  mountain  counties.  For  purposes 
of  comparison  cattle  were  classified  into  four  groups,  each  group 
covering  the  calendar  year  from  January  1  to  December  31.  Group 
No.  1  covered  the  year  in  which  the  calves  were  born,  up  to  and 
including  December  31.  The  average  age  of  the  calves  therefore 
depended  on  the  time  the  majority  were  dropped.  If  calving  occurred 
in  February  and  March  the  average  age  was  taken  as  10  months;  if 
in  April  or  May,  the  average  age  was  taken  as  8  months.  Charges  for 
stock  cattle  were  carried  jointly  with  the  calves  for  the  year  in  which 
the  calves  were  dropped.  Group  No.  2,  made  up  of  yearlings,  covered 
the  second  calendar  year  of  the  youngster's  life,  and  similarly  Group 
No.  3,  consisting  of  two-year-olds,  covered  the  third  calendar  year, 
Group  No.  4,  composed  of  three-year-olds,  covered  any  portion  of 
the  fourth  calendar  year  for  such  beef  cattle  as  were  carried  for 
more  than  three  years.  In  collecting  data,  all  cattle  purchased  for 
fattening  were  omitted,  attention  being  confined  only  to  the  breeding 
and  rearing  of  ordinary  market  cattle  under  commercial  conditions. 
Purebred  cattle  raised  for  sale  as  breeding  stock  were  not  included. 

In  estimating  charges,  whenever  interest  had  to  be  included,  a  rate 
of  6  per  cent  was  used.  Taxes  and  insurance  were  for  the  actual 
sums  paid. 


CIRCULAR  281]       SURVEY   OF  COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEEF  IN   CALIFORNIA  3 

The  inquiry  included  a  description  of  the  ranch  under  study,  its 
location,  shape,  acreage,  physical  condition,  equipment,  and  climatic 
environment,  data  concerning  methods  of  handling  and  costs — of 
breeding,  feeding,  rearing,  and  marketing.  Calculation  of  invest- 
ment in  actual  buildings,  improvements  and  equipment  was  made  a 
part  of  the  study,  in  addition  to  a  record  of  all  labor  costs  (human, 
horse  and  mechanical),  all  general  expenses,  depreciation  of  equip- 
ment, interest  on  operating  capital,  and  credits.  Information  was 
also  obtained  covering  costs  of  marketing,  prices  obtained,  and  cattle- 
men's suggestions  as  to  possible  improvements. 

Four  rather  distinct  methods  of  raising  cattle  were  practiced  by 
the  operators  of  these  thirty-two  ranches.  A  classification  is  made 
according  to  these  methods : 

Class  I  (Records  1-15)  consists  of  grass  fat  cattle,  raised  exclusively 
under  range  conditions,  on  home  ranges,  occasionally  supplemented 
with  summer  ranges.  These  records  included  ranges  under  all  con- 
ditions, e.g.,  southern  coast,  central  valley,  and  mountain. 

Class  II  (Records  16-21)  consists  of  cattle  fed  a  small  amount  of 
supplementary  feeds  during  periods  when  the  range  Avas  short,  though 
generally  marketed  as  grass  fat  cattle.  Such  records  were  obtained 
from  Shasta,  Mendocino,  San  Luis  Obispo,  and  Tehama  counties. 

Class  III  (Records  22-27)  differs  from  the  two  preceding  classes 
in  that  the  cattle  were  generally  fed  hay,  at  from  y2  to  1%  tons  per 
head,  during  the  cold  weather  in  addition  to  summer  range  and  some 
winter  range  feed.  These  records  were  collected  in  Siskiyou,  Modoc, 
Yuba,  and  .Humboldt  counties. 

Class  IV  (Records  28-32)  consists  of  cattle  fattened  for  market  on 
various  supplementary  feeds,  such  as  hay,  beet  tops,  alfalfa,  barley 
and  corn.  Records  for  this  group  are  from  Butte  and  Santa  Barbara 
counties. 

In  assembling  the  data,  costs  calculated  at  the  end  of  the  first  year 
of  the  calf's  career  included  the  following: 

(1)  A  herd  charge,  made  up  of  interest  on  average  investment  in 
stock  cattle,  depreciation,  mortality,  taxes  and  insurance. 

(2)  A  similar  charge  was  determined  for  the  use  of  corrals  and 
of  equipment,  and  pro-rated  according  to  amount  of  use  by  these 
calves  and  stock  cattle. 

(3)  Operating  costs  were  made  up  of  labor — manual,  management 
horse,  and  use  of  truck  and  automobile;  feeds,  supplies,  and  miscel- 
laneous expenses. 

Man  labor  was  recorded  in  hours  of  actual  labor  at  the  going  wage, 
including  the  value  of  board  and  any  other  perquisites.    Management 


4  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

was  determined  by  estimating  the  amount  of  time  spent  by  the 
operator  in  purely  managerial  details,  at  the  going  salary  scale  for 
operating  a  similar  business,  or  by  prorating  the  actual  rate  paid  if 
the  operator  received  a  salary. 

To  eliminate  the  necessity  of  becoming  involved  in  land  values, 
all  feeds  contributed  by  the  ranch,  whether  pasture,  hay,  concentrates, 
or  others,  were  charged  at  farm  value,  that  is,  at  market  price  less 
costs  of  preparing  for  sale,  delivering,  and  selling.  Purchased  feeds 
were  figured  at  cost  delivered  to  the  ranch. 

Capital  invested  in  herds,  ranch  buildings,  ranch  equipment,  and 
improvements  in  connection  with  corrals  and  stock  quarters,  such  as 
fences,  feed  racks,  water  troughs,  shelters,  and  flooring,  was  handled 
as  an  investment.  Lands  used  for  pasturage  or  for  the  production  of 
feed  were  not  included  under  investment,  because  productive  land 
values  are  difficult  to  determine.  Lands  used  for  producing  feed  for 
the  ranch  were  taken  into  account  by  a  proper  sum  based  on  the  going 
rate  for  pasture  and  the  farm  value  for  all  hay,  grain,  or  other  feeds 
produced.  No  land  investments  were  taken  into  account  other  than 
those  in  corrals,  lanes,  building  sites,  feed  lots,  and  those  occupied  by 
stock  water  facilities.  This  method  eliminated  any  danger  of  over- 
valuing lands,  or  inclusion  of  lands  valued  on  a  basis  other  than  for 
strictly  agricultural  productive  use.  The  value  of  the  feeds  produced, 
taken  at  farm  prices,  automatically  determines  productive  land  value. 

The  investment  charge  for  lands  in  corrals,  lanes,  etc.,  was  made 
up  of  the  crop  rental  value  for  such  lands.  The  reason  for  this  is 
obvious.  If  lands  regularly  rent  for  $2.50,  $3.00,  or  $4,00  for  agri- 
cultural purposes,  yet  have  a  market  value  of  $100  or  $150  per  acre, 
interest  at  6  per  cent,  if  taken  at  the  market  value,  would  result  in  an 
inordinately  high  charge  of  $6.00  to  $9.00,  instead  of  the  actual  pay- 
ments of  less  than  half  as  much. 

In  the  event  that  new  investments  were  made  during  the  year,  such 
investments  were  taken  into  account  in  accordance  with  the  length  of 
time  that  they  were  in  use  during  the  period  covered  by  this  study, 
and  pro-rated  accordingly. 

Interest  was  allowed  upon  the  average  investment  in  cattle,  in 
buildings,  in  corral  improvements  and  in  ranch  equipment.  Interest 
was  also  charged  upon  sums  of  operating  capital  required  to  meet 
current  expenses. 

The  herd  investment  was  determined  from  the  average  number  of 
cows  and  bulls  maintained  throughout  the  year  at  average  values  as 
shown  by  the  first  and  second  inventories.  This  figure  therefore 
reflects  any  changes  in  values  from  such  causes  as  fluctuating  markets, 


CIRCULAR  281]       SURVEY   OF  COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEEF  IN   CALIFORNIA  5 

selling  off  of  old  cows,  purchase  of  better  stock,  introduction  of  young 
animals  into  the  breeding  herd,  or  similar  changes  affecting  the  selling 
value  of  the  herd. 

The  sum  of  these  various  charges  plus  a  sum  to  cover  interest  on 
operating  capital  less  any  credits  obtained  gave  the  cost  per  head  for 
the  calendar  year  involved.  Dividing  by  the  weight  per  head  indi- 
cated the  cost  per  pound. 

Costs  for  young  cattle  during  their  second  year  were  made  up  of 
interest  on  investment  in  cattle  of  this  group,  taxes,  insurance,  and 
proper  pro-rata  of  the  charges  for  use  of  buildings,  corrals  and  equip- 
ment, of  operating  costs,  interest  on  operating  capital,  less  credits. 
Cost  for  this  second  year  was  then  added  to  the  total  as  found  for  the 
first  year. 

For  the  third  and  subsequent  years  costs  wTere  similarly  figured 
and  added  to  the  cost  total  already  found. 

Data  were  obtained  by  actual  records  taken  from  ranch  books  and 
from  men's  actual  experiences  and  estimates.  The  data  were  taken 
for  conditions  representing  as  nearly  as  possible  a  cross  section  of  the 
ordinary  commercial  practices  in  normal  years,  with  a  definite  attempt 
made  to  eliminate  exceptional  conditions  or  unusual  data. 

OUTLINE    OF    THE    STUDY    AND    FINDINGS 

Costs  of  Producing  California  Beef. — On  the  basis  of  cattlemen's 
estimates  and  data  collected  during  the  period  October  15,  1923,  to 
February  1,  1924,  the  average  cost  of  producing  a  calf  to  the  end  of 
the  calendar  year  in  which  it  was  born  amounted  to  $38,  or  8.8  cents 
per  pound.  On  the  same  basis  at  the  end  o±.  the  second  year,  the 
youngster  then  being  a  short  two-year-old,  the  cost  amounted  to 
$56.31,  or  7.7  cents  per  pound  and  at  the  end  of  the  third  calendar 
year  to  $80.60  per  head,  or  7.6  cents  per  pound.  For  cattle  carried 
beyond  the  third  calendar  year  the  cost  rose  to  $108.69,  or  9  cents  per 
pound.  Considerable  variations  in  costs  occurred  with  the  different 
ranches.  These  variations  were  traceable  to  a  number  of  factors  such 
as  percentage  of  calf  drop,  mortality,  average  gains  in  weight  per 
year,  investment  in  equipment,  labor  expenditures,  and  estimated 
costs  of  management.  For  instance,  the  costs  of  producing  calves  to 
the  end  of  the  calendar  year  in  which  they  were  born  varied  from 
$22.47  to  $58.70  for  the  different  ranches,  though  $38  was  the  average. 
On  these  thirty-two  cattle  ranches,  four  produced  at  a  cost  per  head 
of  less  than  $30,  twelve  at  from  $30  to  $40,  eleven  at  from  $40  to  $50, 
and  five  faced  costs  in  excess  of  $50.  The  cost  to  the  end  of  the  second 
year  averaging  $56.31  ranged  from  $32.83  to  $88.04,  with  five  ranches 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


producing  at  less  than  $40,  eleven  at  from  $40  to  $55,  nine  at  from 
$55  to  $70,  while  seven  cost  over  $70  per  head.  The  costs  to  the  end 
of  the  third  year,  averaging  $80.60,  ranged  from  $44.69  to  $118.88. 
Ten  of  these  thirty-two  ranches  brought  cattle  to  this  stage  at  a  cost 
per  head  below  $75.  It  cost  $75  to  $90  for  eleven,  and  the  eleven 
remaining  had  costs  of  over  $90  per  head. 

The  following  table  gives  the  details  for  all  thirty-two  ranches  with 
average  costs  both  by  the  head  and  by  the  pound. 


Cost  of  Producing  California  Beef 
Based  on  cattlemen's  estimates  and  data  collected  October  15,  1923-February  1, 

1894 


Number 
of  head 
of  stock 

cows 

(to  give 

idea  of 

size) 

Net  cost 

per  head 

Net  cost  per  pound 

Ranch 
number 

Calves, 
end  of 
1st  year 

Year- 
lings, end 
of  2nd 
year 

Twos, 

end  of 

3rd  year 

Threes, 

or 

older 

Calves, 
end  of 
1st  year 

Year- 
lings, end 
of  2nd 
year 

Twos, 

end  of 

3rd  year 

Threes, 

or 

older 

1 

325 
250 
784 
275 
150 
175 
750 

1,800 
960 

1,200 
270 
225 
300 
300 
300 
600 
594 

1,050 
200 
140 
75 
700 
310 
250 
100 
110 
53 
500 

1,200 
185 
700 
600 

$46.32 
46.09 
39.75 
30.75 
45.06 
35.68 
46.21 
33.31 
38.16 
33.90 
26.85 
41.00 
48.89 
58.70 
45.32 
37.17 
37.83 
22.47 
46.54 
55.25 
50.95 
36.80 
34.64 
58.26 
47.14 
54.82 
49.74 
23.13 
42.29 
34.62 
25.30 
39.90 

$38.00 

$65.15 
70.60 
53.89 
47.27 
66.10 
54.93 
67.22 
55.20 
48.46 
55.07 
38.03 
66.02 
83.41 
75.12 
65.48 
49.70 
52.41 
32.83 
65.88 
84.73 
78.62 
50:21 
50.28 
78.77 
66.59 
78.62 
88.04 
36.88 
56.40 
36.76 
34.96 
58.30 

$56.31 

$87.32 

82.65 

75.38 

62.24 

93.10 

75.22 

89.01 

76.90 

60.11 

71.67 

46.84 

102.11 

116.79 

92.58 

87.75 

66.41 

68.62 

44.69 

98.46 

103.86 

108.28 

71.59 

68.47 

105.44 

90.10 

112.56 

118.88 

61.07 

76.83 

81.29 

50.60 

84.17 

$80.60 

$100.43 

10.00c 

8.40 

9.90 

6.80 

8.19 

7.90 

10.26 

8.34 

7.20 

6.78 

5.96 

9.00 

10.80 

10.67 

10.07 

10.92 

8.00 

5.60 

11.63 

11.05 

12.70 

8.65 

11.54 

14.56 

11.78 

15.66 

12.40 

5.18 

10.50 

*  7.70 

7.20 

7.98 

8.8c 

8.68c 

8.30 

8.30 

6.75 

8.81 

8.45 

8.40 

6.13 

5.80 

6.90 

5.85 

8.80 

11.00 

10.01 

8.71 

8.28 

6.60 

5.10 

9.41 

12.10 

12.10 

6.47 

7.73 

13.12 

11.09 

10.23 

12.60 

6.14 

7.50 

5.00 

5.80 

7.00 

7.7c 

8.30c 

8.30 

6.85 

5.65 

8.46 

8.30 

7.41 

6.80 

5.70 

6.00 

5.02 

10.21 

9.70 

9.25 

7.97 

7.37 

6.50 

4.70 

9.84 

10.38 

11.40 

6.98 

6.82 

11.07 

10.60 

11.25 

11.88 

6.10 

6.90 

7.20 

4.80 

8.00 

7.6c 

8.35c 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6...  . 

84.45 
114.16 
102.50 

7.30 

7 

9.20 

8 

8.54 

9 

10 

11 

12 

117.06 

9.70 

13 

14 

110.93 

115.21 

76.35 

9.64 

15 

9.21 

16 

6.61 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

99.14 
105.18 

8.26 

23 

8.76 

24 

25..   . 

114.39 
129.52 

10.89 

26 

11.20 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

$108.69 

Totals 

15,431 

and  weighted 
averages 

9c 

CIRCULAR  281]       SURVEY  OF  COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEEF  IN   CALIFORNIA  7 

Because  of  the  number  of  cattlemen's  estimates  entering  into  this 
study,  some  of  which  are  vital  in  a  final  analysis,  as,  for  instance,  per- 
centage of  calf  drop,  mortality,  and  average  annual  gains,  a  question 
naturally  arises  as  to  the  operator's  ability  to  recall  or  to  estimate 
closely  enough  for  these  compilations,  and,  as  a  logical  consequence, 
the  fairness  of  the  deductions  may  be  somewhat  open  to  debate.  Yet, 
if  this  report  serves  to  show  the  need  of  keeping  more  accurate  records, 
and,  as  well,  points  the  way  to  the  kind  of  information  that  can  be 
gleaned  from  properly  kept  records,  its  publication  may  serve  a  useful 
purpose. 

Notwithstanding  the  limitations  of  this  particular  study,  the  work, 
in  my  opinion,  is  of  value  as  a  study  of  general  conditions,  since  the 
final  result  is  fairly  accurate.  It  also  illustrates  what  can  be  done  in 
the  way  of  finding  out  costs  from  properly  kept  records. 


FINDINGS 

These  thirty-two  ranches  possessed  a  total  of  484,283  acres  of  land, 
varying  from  1750  to  60,000  acres  for  the  individual  holding.  In  some 
instances,  for  various  reasons,  the  range  was  not  fully  utilized,  in 
others  it  was  supplemented  by  grazing  in  national  forests,  or  by  other 
summer  pasture.  Seventeen  of  the  thirty -two  ranches  each  possessed 
an  acreage  in  excess  of  10,000  acres. 

In  numbers  of  stock  cattle  the  herds  totaled  15,431  cows  and  833 
bulls,  the  cow  herds  ranging  from  53  to  1200,  twelve  herds  being  in 
excess  of  500  head. 

Native  range  was  the  outstanding  feed,  this  alone  serving  on  eleven 
ranches  for  calves,  and  on  twenty  ranches  for  yearlings.  Thirteen 
cattlemen  utilized  supplementary  feeds  for  their  three-year-old  cattle, 
especially  in  finishing  for  market.  Four  cattlemen  utilized  such 
feeds  for  their  beef  older  than  three  years. 

The  average  cost  of  producing  a  steer,  based  on  the  findings  from 
these  thirty-two  ranches  was  as  follows : 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Costs  During  the  First  Year — Average  Age  9  Months 
Feed 

Eange    $13.07 

Supplementary  3.31 

Labor 

Eiders  and  manual.... 4.63 

Management  2.54 

Use  of  saddle  horses   1.13 

Use  of  autos  and   trucks .86 

Use  of  buildings  .96 

Use  of  corrals  .66 

Use  of  equipment  .27 

Herd  charge 8.66 

Minor  and  miscellaneous  charges 3.05 


Gross  cost  per  head $39.14 

Less   credits*   1.14 


Net  cost  first  year $38.00 

Average  weight,  433  pounds.          Average  cost  per  pound,  8.8  cents. 
*  Hides,  home-used  meats,  etc. 

Cost  by  End  of  Second  Year — Average  Age  21  Months 

Net  cost  end  of  first  year $38.00 

Costs  incurred  during  second  year: 
Feed 

Eange    $6.29 

Supplementary  1.58 

Labor 

Eiders  and  manual 2.66 

Management  2.07 

Use  of  saddle  horses .64 

Use  of  autos  and  trucks .55 

Use  of  buildings  .53 

Use  of  corrals   .40 

Use  of  equipment  .14 

Herd  charge  2.30 

Minor  and  miscellaneous  charges 1.65 

Gross  cost  second  year $18.81 

Less   credits  .50 

Net  cost  second  year $18.31 

■Net  cost  first  year 38.00 

Total  net  costs  first  and  second  years $56.31 

Average  weight  second  year,  735  pounds. 
Cost  per  pound  end  of  second  year,  7.7  cents. 


Circular  281]     survey  of  cost  of  producing  beef  in  California 

Cost  by  End  of  Third  Year — Average  Age  33  Months 

Net  cost  end  of  second  year $56.31 

Costs  incurred  during  third  year: 
Feed 

Eange    $9.56 

Supplementary  3.43 

Labor 

Eiders   and   manual 2.85 

Management  1.46 

Use  of  saddle  horses .64 

Use  of  autos  and  trucks .53 

Use  of  buildings  .52 

Use  of  corrals  .42 

Use  of  equipment  .13 

Herd  charges  3.11 

Minor  and  miscellaneous  charges 1.64 

Net  cost  third  year  (no  credits)  $24.29 

Net  cost  first  and  second  years 56.31 

Net  cost  end  of  third  year $80.60 

Average  weight  end  of  third  year,  1063  pounds. 
Average  cost  per  pound,  7.6  cents. 

Cost  to  Selling  Period,  Fourth  Year — Average  Age  44  Months 

Net  cost  end  of  third  year $80.60 

Costs  incurred  during  fourth  year: 
Feed 

Eange    $8.71 

Supplementary   8.36 

Labor 

Eiders   and   manual 2.63 

Management  .91 

Use  of  saddle  horses .53 

Use  of  autos    and   trucks .44 

Use  of  buildings  .74 

Use  of  corrals  .14 

Use  of  equipment  .13 

Herd  charge  3.22 

Minor  and  miscellaneous  charges 2;28 

Net  cost  during  fourth  year  (no  credits)  $28.09 

Net  cost  first  three  years 80.60 

Total  net  cost  fourth  year $108.69 

Average  weight  fourth  year,  1202  pounds. 
Cost  per  pound,  9c. 


10  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


HANDLING    OF   CATTLE 

Ages  of  Cattle. — The  average  ages  of  the  different  groups  of  young 
stock  were  found  to  be  as  follows : 

End  of  first  calendar  year — average  9  months,  range  6  to  12 

months. 
End  of  second  calendar  year — average  21  months. 
End  of  third  calendar  year — average  33  months. 
End  of  fourth  calendar  year — average  44  months. 

Approximately  one-third  of  the  total  calves  were  9  months  old 
by  the  end  of  the  first  calendar  year.  This  amounted  to  twice  as 
many  calves  as  the  next  highest  figure,  e.g.,  10  months. 

Age  of  Marketing. — The  earliest  age  of  marketing  was  reported 
as  being  from  26  to  28  months.  The  longest  time  that  cattle  were  held 
was  given  as  being  from  40  to  44  months.  Cattle  sold  at  the  earlier 
dates  were  estimated  to  weigh  from  1000  to  1100  pounds.  The  weight 
of  the  older  cattle  was  placed  at  1200  pounds.  The  average  age  of 
selling  cattle  came  when  they  were  33  months  old,  and  reported  as 
weighing  about  1000  pounds.  This  would  seem  to  indicate  that  cattle- 
men as  a  whole  realize  that  beef  over  three  years  of  age  can  be  pro- 
duced at  a  profit  only  under  unusual  conditions. 

Relation  of  Production  Costs  to  Price. — The  average  cost  per 
pound  for  a  twenty-one  months  old  beef  animal  was  found  to  be  7.7 
cents,  while  that  of  a  three-year-old  animal  was  7.6  cents.  The 
market  price  of  steer  beef  during  the  year  1922  ran  from  6  to  7  cents, 
the  bulk  of  the  sales  being  at  figures  between  6  and  6%  cents  per 
pound,  while  a  few  cattle  sold  below  6  cents  or  above  7  cents.  It  is 
therefore  evident  that  there  is  plenty  of  room  for  reduction  of  costs 
of  production,  or  increase  in  price,  if  costs  and  receipts  are  to  more 
nearly  balance  one  another. 

Breeds  of  Cattle. — The  following  breeds  were  represented  on  these 
various  ranches :  Shorthorns,  Heref ords,  and  Angus.  Twelve  ranches 
reported  their  breeding  stock  as  Herefords,  nine  as  Shorthorns,  or  else 
a  cross  of  Shorthorns  and  Herefords,  and  two  as  Angus. 

Period  of  Breeding. — Most  of  the  breeding  took  place  during 
spring  and  summer — fifteen  ranches  so  reporting.  Nine  reported 
spring  breeding,  five  all  year,  and  three  summer  breeding. 

Calf  Drop. — Wide  variation  was  found  in  percentages  of  calf  drop, 
running  from  a  low  of  50  per  cent  on  rough,  bushy  ranges,  to  90  per 
cent  under  the  more  favorable  conditions  of  feed  and  stock,  with  an 


CIRCULAR  281]       SURVEY  OF  COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEEF  IN   CALIFORNIA         11 

average  for  the  thirty-two  ranches  of  67.3  per  cent.  The  higher  per- 
centages usually  hold  for  small  ranches  where  breeding  fields  are 
small,  and  much  individual  attention  is  given  to  stock  cattle. 

Weaning. — Weaning  took  place  either  during  the  late  summer 
months  or  the  early  fall  months,  the  more  general  time  being  Septem- 
ber, October,  and  November,  with  occasionally  some  weaning  accom- 
plished as  early  as  July  and  August  or  as  late  as  December. 

Branding  and  Altering. — The  months  of  April  and  May  were 
figured  as  the  time  for  branding  and  altering,  occasionally  some 
summer  work  was  done,  and  a  few  ranches  practiced  branding  and 
altering  twice  a  year,  once  in  the  spring  and  once  in  the  fall.  Of  the 
thirty-two  ranches  twenty-one  did  the  branding  and  altering  during 
either  April,  May,  or  June,  even  though  they  might  follow  with  a 
second  round-up  during  the  fall. 

Age  of  Discarding  Cows. — The  age  of  cows  discarded  as  breeding 
stock  ranged  from  a  low  of  three  years  of  calving  to  a  high  of  fifteen 
years.  One  ranch  reported  that  their  cows  were  discarded  anywhere 
after  three  to  ten  calves,  while  another  estimate  placed  the  serviceable 
age  of  cows  at  ten  to  fifteen  years.  The  bulk  of  discarding,  however, 
was  reported  as  taking  place  between  the  ages  of  seven  and  ten  years. 

Average  Value  per  Head. — The  average  value  of  herds  of  stock 
cows  ranged  from  a  low  of  $30  to  a  high  of  $75  per  head.  The  stock 
cows  in  only  three  of  the  thirty-two  ranches  were  valued  at  more  than 
$50.  Six  cattlemen  valued  their  stock  cattle  at  $30,  four  at  $35, 
eleven  at  $40,  three  at  $45,  five  at  $50,  two  at  $60,  and  one  at  $75. 

The  bulls  ranged  in  value  from  a  low  of  $50  to  a  high  of  $350. 
Two  valued  their  bulls  under  $75,  four  at  from  $75  to  $100,  nineteen 
from  $100  to  $150  inclusive,  and  seven  at  from  more  than  $150  up 
to  $350. 

The  average  value  placed  upon  calves  ranged  from  $10  to  $30 
inclusive.  Four  ranchers  valued  their  calves  at  less  than  $15  at  the 
end  of  the  first  calendar  year,  ten  at  from  $15  to  $19  inclusive,  nine 
at  from  $20  to  $24  inclusive,  and  eight  at  from  $25  to  $30  inclusive. 

The  value  of  yearlings  was  placed  at  from  a  low  of  $20  to  a  high 
of  $50  at  the  end  of  the  second  calendar  year  of  the  youngsters' 
growth.  Four  cattlemen  valued  this  group  of  cattle  at  less  than  $25, 
fifteen  at  from  $25  to  $34  inclusive,  eleven  at  from  $35  to  $44  inclu- 
sive, and  two  at  $50. 

The  average  value  per  head  for  two-year-olds  ranged  from  a  low 
of  $30  to  a  high  of  $70  (for  steers).  Heifers,  when  a  distinction 
between  steers  and  heifers  was  made,  were  rated  at  $10  a  head  less 
than  steers. 


12  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

The  average  for  cattle  carried  to  the  end  of  the  third  calendar 
year,  e.g.  long  twos,  were  mostly  valued  from  $45  to  $55,  one  operator 
valued  this  class  of  cattle  at  less  than  $35,  sixteen  at  from  $35  to  $44 
inclusive,  ten  at  from  $45  to  $54  inclusive,  and  three  at  from  $55  to 
$64  inclusive. 

For  the  aged  beef  cattle,  values  were  placed  at  from  $40  to  $54 
inclusive  by  eight  operators,  and  at  from  $55  to  $66  inclusive  by  six 
operators. 

Gains. — Weights  of  calves  at  the  end  of  the  calendar  year  in  which 
they  were  born  averaged  433  pounds,  although  a  spread  was  reported 
by  the  thirty-two  cattlemen  of  from  300  to  550  pounds.  Four  cattle- 
men reported  weights  of  from  300  to  400  pounds,  twenty-one  of  from 
400  to  500  pounds,  and  seven  of  500  pounds  or  more. 

Weights  of  cattle  sold  during  the  fourth  year  by  twelve  cattlemen 
holding  beef  to  this  age  averaged  1202  pounds,  and  ranged  from  1050 
to  1250  pounds. 

Number  of  Balls  Used. — Cattlemen  reported  using  from  as  few  as 
one  bull  to  40  cows  to  as  high  as  one  bull  to  16  cows.  The  average 
was  one  bull  to  22  cows,  the  majority  of  operators  using  either  four  or 
five  bulls  per  100  cows. 

Mortality. — Cattlemen's  estimates  of  the  mortality  of  stock  cows 
ranged  from  a  low  of  %  of  1  per  cent  to  a  high  of  7%  per  cent.  The 
average  was  close  to  3  per  cent,  most  men  reporting  their  losses  at 
from  2  to  3  per  cent,  although  enough  heifers  were  usually  retained 
each  year  to  offset  the  mortality  loss. 

Three  ranches  reported  no  death  loss  among  their  bulls.  The 
lowest  reported  loss  amounted  to  %  of  1  per  cent,  the  highest  figure 
was  20  per  cent.  The  average  amounted  to  3.6  per  cent,  with  most 
cattlemen  figuring  their  mortality  of  bulls  as  being  between  1  and  2 
per  cent. 

Calf  mortality  ranged  from  a  low  of  %  of  1  per  cent  (one  man 
reporting  no  loss)  to  a  high  of  8  per  cent.  The  average  for  the  thirty- 
two  ranches  amounted  to  3.23  per  cent  with  most  of  the  ranches 
reporting  a  mortality  loss  of  4  to  5  per  cent. 

Mortality  of  youngsters  during  the  second  year  ranged  from  y2  °^ 
1  per  cent  to  7  per  cent.  Here  again  one  operator  reported  no  mor- 
tality. Average  mortality  amounted  to  2  per  cent,  with  most  of  the 
figures  standing  at  from  1  to  2  per  cent. 

Mortality  during  the  third  calendar  year  (e.g.,  period  from  21 
to  33  months),  ranged  from  %  of  1  per  cent  to  5  per  cent,  with 


CIRCULAR  281]       SURVEY  OF  COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEEF  IN   CALIFORNIA         13 

two  operators  reporting  no  mortality.  The  average  for  all  reports 
amounted  to  1.4  per  cent,  with  most  of  the  men  reporting  from  1  to 
2  per  cent. 

Mortality  of  mature  beef  cattle  ranged  from  a  low  of  14  of  1  per 
cent  to  a  high  of  5  per  cent,  with  an  average  of  1.3  per  cent.  Most 
operators  reported  mortality  for  this  group  at  less  than  1  per  cent, 
e.g.,  either  1/4  or  y2  of  1  per  cent. 

Influence  of  Methods  upon  Costs. — Although  the  number  of  records 
in  certain  of  the  groups  are  too  few  in  number  to  permit  drawing  final 
conclusions,  yet  they  show  a  difference  in  costs  traceable  to  different 
methods  of  raising  cattle. 

The  average  for  each  group  is  given  below.  Too  few  records  are 
available  for  cattle  beyond  the  third  year — hence  aged  steers  are 
ignored  in  tabulating  these  particular  data. 


Number  Per- 
of  cent- 
Method  of  feeding                  records  age  of 
in  each  calf 
group  drop 

Range..... 15  70 

Range  and  a  little  supple- 
mentary feed 6  67 

Range  and  generous  use  of 

hay  in  winter 6  73 

Range:  with  beef  cattle  fin- 
ished  on   beet   tops,    hay, 

barley  or  similar  feeds 5  71         430      7.7       705       6.3      1,075     6.5 


UNIT  FACTORS 

To  provide  a  means  of  measuring  the  cost  of  producing  beef,  as 
long  as  practice  remains  similar  to  that  in  use  at  the  time  this  study 
was  made,  a  table  of  unit  factors  is  appended  below.  By  "unit 
factors ' '  are  meant  basic  items  making  up  complete  cost  measured  in 
terms  of  time  and  quantity  rather  than  in  dollars  and  cents. 

The  unit  factors  are  made  up  from  the  following  basic  data : 

Number  of  ranches 32 

Gross    acreage 484,283 

Numbers  of  cattle : 

Stock  cows  15,431 

Bulls    : 833 

Calves    10,703 

Yearlings    10,007 

Twos    9,850 

Threes  or  older 1,651 


First 
* 

year 

Second 

A 

1  year 

Third 

A 

year 

Aver, 
weight 
end  of 

Aver, 
cost 

r 

Aver, 
weight 
end  of 

Aver, 
cost 

Aver, 
weight 
end  of 

Aver, 
cost 

year, 
lbs. 

per 
lb. 

year, 
lbs. 

per 
lb. 

year, 
lbs. 

per 
lb. 

477 

8.7c 

792 

8.1c 

1,076 

7.6c 

450 

10.0 

683 

8.9 

975 

8.4 

381 

12.8 

671 

10.2 

990 

9.6 

14  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Table  Showing  Unit  Factors  per  Head  per  Year  Involved  in  Eaising 

Beef  Cattle 


Age  of  Cattle — Years 


First  year  Second  Year  Third  year  Fourth  year 

Home  ranch — acres 20  63^  10  7 

Riders  and  manual  labor: 

Average  hours 12  7  7  7 

Management,  average  hours 4  2\i  2>lA  1/^ 

Use  of  horses,  hours 19.2  11.3  12.6  13.8 

Use  of  autos  and  trucks,  miles 9.5  5.9  6.6  5.1 

Cost  of  supplementary  feeds $3.87  $1.50  $2.44  $2.98 

Use  of  buildings 96  .53  .52  .74 

Use  of  corrals  and  improvements .66  .40  .42  .14 

Use  of  equipment 27  .14  .13  .13 

Herd  charge 8.66  2.30  3.11  3.22 

Miscellaneous  charges 3.05  1.65  1.64  2.20 

Credits 1.14  .50 


Average  weights  end  of  year,  in  pounds.        433  735  1,063  1,202 

In  addition  to  the  home  range,  eleven  ranches  utilized  other  pas- 
tures (e.g.,  grazing  in  National  Forest  Keserves),  while  twenty  cattle- 
men fed  supplementary  feeds. 

On  the  basis  of  home  range  data,  a  cow  and  her  calf  annually 
require  approximately  three  times  the  feed  necessary  to  carry  a  year- 
ling and  twice  the  feed  needed  for  a  two-year-old.  Similarly  a  year- 
ling requires  approximately  65  per  cent  of  the  feed  necessary  for  a 
two-year-old.  This  deduction  assumes  that  the  feed  is  of  equal  quality 
for  all  cattle.  In  actual  practice  beef  animals  are  commonly  given 
preference  over  stock  cattle  in  alloting  the  better  feed,  so  that  the 
spread  in  acreage  needs  doubtless  is  partly  traceable  to  the  fact  that 
the  cows  are  obliged  to  utilize  the  less  desirable  feeds. 

For  the  unit  factors  shown  above,  the  costs  obtained  by  this  survey 
were  as  follows : 

Riders  and  manual  labor,  cost  per  hour  averaged 38.7c 

Management  per  hour  averaged 70.0c 

Saddle  horses,  average  cost  per  hour 52.0c 

Automobiles  and  trucks,  average  cost  per  mile  of  use 8.5c 

The  average  amounts  of  investment  per  head  of  the  different 
groups  of  cattle  were  as  follows : 

Stock  cows $41.87 

Stock  bulls 139.48 

Calves    19.35 

Yearlings 29.23 

Two-year-olds  43.43 

Three-year-olds  51.4(5 


CIRCULAR  281]       SURVEY  OF  COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEEF  IN   CALIFORNIA         15 


SUGGESTIONS 

Costs  per  Pound. — In  connection  with  the  collection  of  cost  data 
an  effort  was  made  to  obtain  suggestions  from  operators  and  field 
men  indicating  ways  in  which  profits  might  be  increased.  The  field 
work  was  further  augmented  by  a  study  of  the  data  tables  as  presented 
in  the  foregoing  parts  of  this  report.  Obviously  all  forthcoming 
recommendations  are  not  applicable  to  every  ranch,  yet  it  is  believed 
that  all  operators  can  find  something  of  value  in  the  discussion.  One 
of  the  outstanding  results  is  a  possibility  of  increasing  profits  by  sell- 
ing at  a  time  when  costs  are  at  the  lowest  stage.  The  findings  illus- 
trating this  point  are  shown  below. 

The  figures  of  actual  costs  were : 

End  of  Cost  per  head  Cost  per  pound 

First   year     $38.00  8.8c 

Second  year  56.31  7.7c 

Third  year  80.60  7.6c 

After  third  year 108.69  9.0c 

Considering  cumulative  costs  only,  it  is  wise  to  dispose  of  all  beef 
before  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  year.  Considering  the  selling  price, 
the  wider  the  spread  between  the  cost  and  the  selling  price  (when  the 
latter  is  higher  than  the  former)  the  more  profit  is  obtainable  by  sell- 
ing rather  than  by  holding,  provided  the  capacity  of  the  range  be 
fully  utilized.     This  is  discussed  more  in  detail  on  page  21. 

Economizing  in  Feed  and  Labor. — An  idea  of  the  relative  impor- 
tance of  the  various  items  entering  into  the  cost  of  producing  beef  can 
be  gained  by  noting  the  percentages  of  (1)  feed,  (2)  labor,  (3)  use 
of  horses,  autos,  trucks,  (4)  use  of  buildings,  corrals  and  equipment, 
(5)  herd  charge,  (6)  minor  and  miscellaneous  charges.  These  data 
are  set  forth  immediately  below : 

Cost  per  head  in  dollars  Percentage  of  each  item 

Group  First  Second  Third  Fourth        First     Second    Third     Fourth 

Feed $16.38  $7.87  $12.99  $17.07     41%     42%     53%     60% 

Labor 7.17  4.73  4.31  3.54     18         25         18         13 

Use  of  horses,  autos 

and  trucks 1.99  1.19  1.17  .97       5          6          5          3 

Use  of  buildings, 
corrals  and  equip- 
ment   1.89  1.07  1.07  1.01       5          6          4          4 

Herd  charge 8.66  2.30  3.11  3.22     22         12         13         12 

Minor  and  miscel- 
laneous   3  05  1.65  1.64  2.28       9          9           7           8 

$39.14  $18.81  $24.29  $28.09  100       100       100       100 

Credits 1.14  .50  

Net  cost $38.00  $18.31  $24.29  $28.09 


16  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Fortunately  economy  in  feed  and  labor  is  easier  to  accomplish  than 
reduction  in  fixed  charges  for  use  of  buildings,  corrals,  horses,  and  in 
herd  charges,  taxes,  insurance  and  similar  items.  Feed  and  labor 
(including  management)  constitute  59  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  raising 
a  calf  to  the  end  of  the  first  calendar  year,  while  67  per  cent,  71  per 
cent  and  73  per  cent  respectively  are  involved  in  the  subsequent 
second,  third  and  fourth  years.  Attention  to  economic  and  efficient 
use  of  feeds  and  labor  offers  a  means  of  possible  increase  in  profits. 

In  this  connection  it  is  noteworthy  that  the  feed  cost  mounts  in  a 
substantial  amount  for  animals  kept  beyond  the  third  year.  Full 
utilization  of  feed  is  essential.  In  this  study  the  average  acreage  per 
head  varied  as  follows : 

Variations  in  number  of  acres 
Age  of  cattle  alloted  per  head 

First  year  4.5  to  46.1  acres  per  head 

Second  year  3.1  to  16.7  acres  per  head 

Third  year  2.4  to  21.7  acres  per  head 

Fourth  year  3.1  to  17.2  acres  per  head 

Improving  the  range  may  be  a  means  of  materially  lowering  pro- 
duction costs.  This  may  be  accomplished  in  several  ways.  Large 
fields  can  be  cut  up  by  fences  to  permit  the  fullest  use  of  all  grass. 
Where  fencing  is  not  practicable,  cattle  may  be  brought  to  graze  over 
more  range  by  judicious  selection  of  salting  places,  and  by  the  devel- 
opment of  watering  places,  so  that  cattle  will  not  be  required  to  travel 
unreasonably  long  distances  to  water.  Troughs  at  springs  are  prefer- 
able to  mud-holes. 

Fewer  cattle  of  better  quality  help  to  increase  profits,  for  they 
gain  weight  faster  and  mature  earlier  than  do  the  inferior  kinds. 

Rotation  grazing  and  reseeding  of  overgrazed  pastures  are  sug- 
gested as  means  of  getting  the  fullest  use  of  the  pasture.  Rotation 
grazing  permits  natural  reseeding  with  a  resulting  possible  increase 
of  feed  greater  in  quantity  than  can  be  gained  by  continually  grazing. 

It  is  prudent  to  provide  sufficient  reserves  of  hay,  straw  or  pasture 
for  seasons  when  natural  feed  is  short  so  as  to  avoid  most  of  the  heavy 
losses  that  come  every  few  years  to  the  unprepared  and  force  the 
shipping  out  of  cattle  to  other  grazing,  purchase  of  expensive  feed, 
or  else  require  the  facing  of  losses  from  starvation. 

Variable  conditions  under  which  cattle  are  handled  and  differing 
ideas  of  cattlemen  as  to  what  constitutes  satisfactory  handling  means 
that  the  cost  per  animal  may  vary  over  rather  wide  extremes.  Yet 
when  one  sets  up  the  average  cost  per  animal,  an  idea  intrudes  that 
perhaps  some  cattlemen  are  using  too  much  labor  for  economic  beef 


CIRCULAR  281]       SURVEY  OF  COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEEF  IN  CALIFORNIA         17 

production,  while,  conversely,  a  few  may  be  utilizing  too  little.  This 
comment  arises  after  studying  the  individual  costs  on  the  32  ranches 
under  study.  The  summarized  findings  in  this  connection  show  the 
following : 

Use  of  Eiders  and  Manual  Labor 
Number  of  Hours  per  Head  per  Year  for  Different  Classes  of  Cattle 

Age  of  cattle  Variation  in  hours         Average  hours 

First  year  5.2  to  34.6  12 

Second  year  2.9  to  25.0  7 

Third  year  2.9  to  24.8  7 

Fourth  year  2.3  to  18.0  7 

The  cost  in  money  varied  through  wide  extremes,  this  variation 
compared  with  the  group  averages  is  shown  below : 

Cost  of  Labor  per  Head  per  Year  for  Different  Classes  of  Cattle 

Age  of  cattle  Variation  in  cost  Average  cost 

First  year $1.48  to  $15.10  $4.63 

Second  year  1.08  to     10.88  2.66 

Third   year    1.03  to       8.36  2.85 

Fourth   year    1.07  to       6.65  2.63 

Obviously  economy  is  attained  either  by  payment  of  a  relatively 
low  scale  of  wages,  by  a  relatively  large  working  day,  or  more  efficient 
use  of  the  men's  time.  The  average  cost  per  man  hour  at  the  time  of 
making  this  survey  amounted  to  38.7  cents.  Sometimes  economy  in 
man  labor  is  attained  by  the  providing  of  better  equipment  (e.g., 
saddle  horses,  corrals),  by  planning  a  definite  feeding  programme  in 
advance  of  the  season,  or  by  better  organization  of  the  rider,  fence, 
and  other  crews. 

The  same  suggestion  holds  for  management.     The  findings  were : 

Management  Charges 

Number  of  Hours  Spent  in  Management  per  Head  per  Year  for  Different  Classes 

of  Cattle. 

Age  of  cattle  Variation  in  hours  Average  hours 

First  „'?ar  0.4  to  28.7  4 

Second  year  0.2  to  14.6  2Vt 

Third  year 0.3  to  14.7  2*4 

Fourth  year  0.7  to     5.0  iy2 


18  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

The  costs  show  similar  wide  variations : 

Cost  of  Management  in  Money  per  Head  per  Year  for  Different 
Classes  of  Cattle 

Age  of  cattle  Variation  in  costs  Average  charge 

First  year   $.17  to  $16.50  $2.54 

Second   year    07  to       8.38  2.07 

Third   year    17  to       9.24  1.47 

Fourth  year  26  to       2.34  .91 

The  average  charge  for  management  based  on  the  thirty-two 
ranches  amounted  to  70  cents  per  hour. 

Economy  in  the  Use  of  Horse  Labor. — The  possibility  of  more 
economic  use  of  horse  labor  is  suggested  by  a  study  of  the  following 
data: 

Variation  in  the  Use  of  Horses 

Hours  per  Head  per  Year  for  Different  Classes  of  Cattle 

Age  of  cattle  Variation  in' hours  Average  use  in  hours 

First  year  2.0  to  60.7  19.2 

Second  year  1.0  to  32.2  11.3 

Third  year  1.0  to  32.3  12.6 

Fourth  year  1.0  to  55.0  13.8 

Cost  of  Saddle  Horses  per  Head  per  Year  for  Different  Classes  of  Cattle 

Age  of  cattle  Variation  in  costs  Average  costs 

First   year  $.14  to  -$7.04  $1.13 

Second   year    10  to     5.30  .64 

Third   year    10  to     5.43  .64 

Fourth   year    39  to     2.88  .53 

The  cost,  averaged,  for  the  thirty-two  ranches,  amounted  to  5.2 
cents  per  hour  of  use. 

As  evidence  that  different  conditions  result  in  varying  costs  the 
following  table  has  been  prepared  by  reclassifying  certain  of  the 
fifteen  records  covering  cattle  exclusively  raised  on  the  range  into 
two  classes,  (1)  those  producing  under  unusually  low  costs  due  to 
such  conditions  as  low  pasture  charge,  cheap  or  very  efficient  use  of 
labor  and  management,  low  building  charge,  high  calf  drop,  low  gen- 
eral expense,  low  herd  depreciation,  and  (2)  those  facing  unusually 
high  costs  traceable  to  conditions  opposite  to  those  just  cited,  with 
low  calf  drop,  poor  management,  and  high  pasture  charge  as  the  out- 
standing items.    Note  the  difference  in  costs. 


CIRCULAR  281]       SURVEY  OF  COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEEF  IN   CALIFORNIA         19 


First  year                    Second  year                    Third  year 
a a a 


Number  Aver.  Aver.  Aver, 

of        Average       cost  Average  cost  Average  cost 

Ranches  reporting  records      weight       per  lb.         weight         per  lb.         weight         per  lb. 

Unusually  high  costs 4       475  lbs.    10.1c       751  lbs.      9.6c     1,075  lbs.      9.3c 

Unusually  low  costs 3       492  6.7         742  6.2      1,050  5.6 

Average  for  group....     15       477  lbs.      8.7c       792  lbs.      8.1c     1,076  lbs.      7.6c 

Increasing  the  Percentage  of  Calf  Drop. — The  percentage  of  calf 
drop,  a  vital  factor  in  the  cattleman's  business,  may  be  measured  in 
two  ways:  first,  by  reporting  cattlemen's  beliefs  concerning  the  calf 
drop  that  they  are  getting,  and,  second,  by  comparing  the  calves 
reported  in  the  course  of  the  survey  with  the  stock  cattle.  The  former 
method  has  the  disadvantage  in  that  memory  may  recall  the  outstand- 
ing year  (good  or  bad)  or  reflect  a  desire  to  make  as  good  a  showing 
as  possible  for  the  business.  The  comparison  with  the  survey  data 
does  not  permit  a  study  of  cows  sold  or  cows  taken  in,  and  hence  may 
not  be  an  accurate  index  of  the  business.  Yet  the  findings  are  inter- 
esting even  though  they  cannot  be  considered  as  strictly  accurate. 
They  show  a  close  correspondence  between  the  estimated  and  the 
recorded  calf  drop. 

Cattlemen's  statements  of  their  calf  drop  ranged  from  a  low  of 
50  per  cent  to  a  high  of  90  per  cent  and  averaged  for  the  thirty-two 
records  67.3  per  cent. 

A  comparison  of  the  data  set  forth  in  the  tabulated  records  indi- 
cates 10,703  calves  for  15,431  stock  cattle,  or  an  average  drop  of  69 
per  cent.  Both  the  estimated  and  compared  percentages  of  calf  drop 
are  sufficiently  low  to  indicate  the  possibility  of  increasing  profits  by 
giving  attention  to  this  detail. 

Reducing  Mortality. — A  certain  percentage  of  death  losses  from 
various  causes  seems  unavoidable.  The  tabulations  of  the  survey  data 
do  not  show  how  serious  this  factor  may  be,  but  cattlemen 's  estimates, 
called  for  as  a  part  of  the  data  accumulations,  are  instructive.  Esti- 
mates of  the  thirty-two  cattlemen  contributing  data  have  already  been 
set  forth  in  considerable  detail,  and  suggest  the  desirability  of  reduc- 
ing death  losses  when  practical. 

Improving  the  Sire  Situation. — A  noticeable  point  is  the  tendency 
among  some  ranchers  to  use  bulls  that  are  too  high-priced  for  their 
performance  value,  depreciation  of  these  bulls  being  a  very  large  item, 
as  much  as  several  thousand  dollars  in  some  cases.  On  the  whole, 
though,  the  average  investment  in  bulls  appeared  to  be  low. 


20  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

It  may  be  practical  to  increase  the  calf  drop  in  many  cases  such 
as  by  more  use  of  young  bulls,  more  bulls  per  hundred  cows,  main- 
taining cattle  in  better  conditions  at  all  times  (through  rotation  graz- 
ing and  lighter  stocking),  and  closer  culling  out  of  poor  cows  and 
bulls. 

Maintaining  the  Quality  of  Breeding  Cows. — It  is  believed  to  be 
a  mistake  to  breed  heifers  to  calve  at  younger  than  24  months,  as  these 
immature  heifers  are  liable  to  skip  the  following  year.  Furthermore 
calf  and  cow  mortality  is  reported  to  be  much  higher  with  the  younger 
stuff.  Calves,  when  being  weaned,  should  be  given  the  best  pasture 
obtainable  or  fed  for  a  month  or  two,  in  order  to  give  them  a  good 
start  in  life.  A  stunted,  weak  calf  is  liable  to  die  during  the  winter, 
and  at  any  rate  cannot  make  the  gains  possible  with  sturdy,  well- 
grown  animals. 

Dehorning. — Many  cattlemen  think  dehorning  stock  to  be  a  good 
practice  because  of  better  prices  obtainable  at  market  time  and  a  belief 
that  dehorned  animals  are  quieter  and  gain  faster  than  horned  ones. 

Vaccination. — Vaccinating  has  saved  many  cattlemen  from  severe 
loss  from  disease  and  is  recommended. 

Size  of  Business. — It  appears  from  the  data  that  ranches  running 
a  small  number  of  cows  are  at  a  disadvantage,  in  that  overhead  and 
operating  costs  are  liable  to  be  higher  per  head  than  where  the  oper- 
ator runs  large  numbers.  Any  number  below  300  appear  to  be  at  a 
disadvantage.  This  condition  results  in  a  cost  per  pound  in  excess  of 
the  6  to  7  cents  cost  of  producing  beef  on  some  of  the  larger  ranches 
under  efficient  management,  where  the  overhead  and  operating  charges 
do  not  constitute  too  great  a  percentage  of  total  cost. 

Need  of  Better  Bookkeeping. — This  study  was  started  with  a  belief 
that  data  would  be  obtained  from  cattlemen's  books.  Such  did  not 
prove  to  be  the  case.  In  fact,  ignorance  of  many  of  the  elements  of 
their  own  business  .was  rather  general  on  the  part  of  cattlemen. 
Judging  from  the  data  collected,  this  ignorance  extends  particularly 
to  such  items  as  (1)  percentage  of  calf  drop,  (2)  percentage  of  mor- 
tality in  different  classes  of  cattle,  (3)  average  gains  in  weight  from 
calf  to  yearling,  yearling  to  two-year-old,  and  two-year-old  to  three- 
year-old,  (4)  inventories  of  equipment,  especially  as  they  relate  to 
original  costs  and  present  values  of  buildings  and  fences.  Cash 
income  and  outgo,  labor  costs,  values  of  land,  feed  and  cattle,  and 
amounts  of  feeds  utilized  were  pretty  well  known. 


CIRCULAR  281]       SURVEY  OF  COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEEF  IN   CALIFORNIA         21 

Our  findings  indicate  that  better  bookkeeping  (possibly  upon  some 
cooperative  basis)  is  vital  if  cattlemen  are  to  intelligently  plan  their 
activities  and  properly  organize  their  business  both  in  its  relation  to 
allied  interests  and  as  a  unit  within  itself. 

Early  Selling. — The  data  indicate  that  holding  beyond  the  third 
year  is  hardly  justified.  This  is  shown  in  the  table  immediatley  follow- 
ing : 

Average  gain  in  Cost  per  Av.  cost  per  lb.  of 

End  of  Year  weight  during  year  year  gain  during  year 

First    433  lbs.  $38.00  8.8c 

Second  302  lbs.  18.31  6.1c 

Third  330  lbs.  24.29  7.4c 

Fourth  139  lbs.  28.09  20.2c 

This  table  shows  three  other  items :  (1)  If  we  ignore  the  first  year's 
cost,  which  is  necessarily  high,  because  the  cow  cost  is  here  assessed 
against  the  calf,  each  succeeding  year  results  in  an  increasing  cost  of 
feeding  a  beef  animal;  (2)  the  gains  in  weight  from  the  third  to  the 
fourth  year  are  relatively  small,  resulting  in  a  high  cost  per  pound  of 
gain;  and  (3)  the  cheapest  gains  were  made  during  the  second  year 
of  the  life  of  the  animal. 

Brief  Resume. — The  outstanding  factors  which  should  be  con- 
sidered in  attempting  to  decrease  the  cost  of  producing  beef  cattle 
as  shown  by  this  study  are : 

1.  Economy  in  using  feed,  by  suitable  fencing,  judicious  grazing, 
convenient  watering  places,  and  sometimes  seeding  of  range. 

2.  Production  of  economical  supplementary  feeds  when  needed  to 
increase  the  carrying  capacity  of  the  range. 

3.  Selection  of  relatively  cheap  feeds. 

4.  Economical  use  of  man  labor. 

5.  Discarding  surplus  horses. 

6.  Reduction  of  mortality. 

7.  Providing  sufficient  bulls  to  insure  a  satisfactory  calf  drop. 

8.  Maintaining  good,  yet  not  too  expensive  bulls. 

9.  Improvement  of  breeding  cows. 

10.  Care  to  prevent  breeding  immature  heifers. 

11.  Selling  at  an  early  age,  because  on  an  average  the  cheapest 'gains 
are  made  during  the  first  two  years.  Gains  made  by  cattle  raised  for 
beef  after  three  years  tend  to  be  expensive  gains. 

12.  Collection  of  data  concerning  percentages  of  (a)  calf  drop,  (b) 
mortality,  and  (c)  annual  gains. 


22  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

13.  A  better  understanding*  of  investment  in  land,  buildings,  equip- 
ment, and  stock  cattle,  as  a  basis  for  determining  costs  of  production. 
The  greatest  results  will  accompany  economy  in  use  of  feed,  labor, 
and  reduction  of  herd  charges — these  three  constituting  the  largest 
single  items  entering  into  costs  of  production. 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

For  substantial  assistance  in  connection  with  this  survey  much 
credit  is  due  to  the  joint  committee  from  the  California  Cattlemen's 
Association  and  the  College  of  Agriculture,  consisting  of  Messrs.  T.  H. 
Ramsay,  R.  M.  Hagen,  A.  W.  Foster,  E.  W.  Newhall,  Jr.,  L.  Franken- 
heimer,  R.  J.  Langlais,  H.  E.  Erdman  and  R.  L.  Adams,  who,  at  a 
meeting  on  September  25,  1923,  rendered  valuable  assistance  in 
planning  the  details  of  the  survey. 

The  field  work  and  most  of  the  office  calculations  were  entrusted  to 
Messrs.  N.  D.  Hudson  and  E.  S.  Lindauer,  who  were  employed  from 
October  15,  1923,  to  March  1,  1924,  especially  to  collect,  summarize 
and  analyze  data. 

To  all  these  and  to  the  cattlemen  and  their  representatives,  who,  to 
make  possible  this  contribution,  gave  freely  and  willingly  of  their 
time  and  information,  my  thanks  are  gratefully  extended. 


STATION  PUBLICATIONS  AVAILABLE  FOR  FREE  DISTRIBUTION 


BULLETINS 
No.  No. 

253.   Irrigation   and   Soil   Conditions  in  the  346. 

Sierra  Nevada  Foothills,  California.  347. 

261.  Melaxuma    of    the    Walnut,    "Juglans 

regia."  348. 

262.  Citrus   Diseases   of  Florida   and   Cuba  349. 

Compared  with  Those  of  California. 

263.  Size  Grades  for  Ripe  Olives.  350. 
268.  Growing  and  Grafting  Olive  Seedlings.  351. 
273.   Preliminary  Report  on  Kearney  Vine-  352. 

yard  Experimental  Drain. 

275.  The  Cultivation  of  Belladonna  in  Cali-  353. 

fornia.  354. 

276.  The  Pomegranate.  357. 

277.  Sudan  Grass 

278.  Grain  Sorghums. 

279.  Irrigation  of  Rice  in  California.  358. 

280.  Irrigation  of  Alfalfa  in  the  Sacramento 

Valley.  359. 

283.   The  Olive  Insects  of  California.  360. 

285.  The  Milk  Goat  in  California. 

286.  Commercial  Fertilizers.  361. 

287.  Vinegar  from  Waste  Fruits. 

294.   Bean  Culture  in  California.  362. 

298.   Seedless  Raisin  Grapes.  363. 

304.  A   Study  of  the  Effects  of  Freezes  on 

Citrus   in   California.  364. 

310.  Plum  Pollination. 

312.  Mariout  Barley.  366. 

313.  Pruning  Young  Deciduous  Fruit  Trees. 

317.   Selections  of  Stocks  in   Citrus   Propa-  367. 

gation. 
319.   Caprifigs  and  Caprification.  368. 

321.    Commercial  Production  of  Grape  Syrup. 

324.  Storage  of  Perishable  Fruit  at  Freezing  369. 

Temperatures.  370. 

325.  Rice  Irrigation  Measurements  and  Ex-  371. 

periments     in      Sacramento     Valley, 
1914-1919.  372. 

328.   Prune  Growing  in  California. 

331.   Phylloxera-Resistant  Stocks.  373. 

334.  Preliminary  Volume  Tables  for  Second-  374. 

Growth  Redwood. 

335.  Cocoanut    Meal    as    a    Feed   for  Dairy 

Cows  and  Other  Livestock.  375. 

336.  The   Preparation  of  Nicotine  Dust   as 

an  Insecticide.  376. 

339.  The  Relative  Cost  of  Making  Logs  from 

Small  and  Large  Timber.  377. 

340.  Control  of  the  Pocket  Gopher  in  Cali-  378. 

fornia. 

343.  Cheese  Pests  and  Their  Control. 

344.  Cold  Storage  as  an  Aid  to  the  Market- 

ing of  Plums. 


Almond  Pollination. 

The  Control  of  Red  Spiders  in  Decidu- 
ous Orchards. 

Pruning  Young  Olive  Trees. 

A  Study  of  Sidedraft  and  Tractor 
Hitches. 

Agriculture  in  Cut-over  Redwood  Lands. 

California  State  Dairy  Cow  Competition. 

Further  Experiments  in  Plum  Pollina- 
tion. 

Bovine  Infectious  Abortion. 

Results  of  Rice  Experiments  in   1922. 

A  Self-mixing  Dusting  Machine  for 
Applying  Dry  Insecticides  and 
Fungicides. 

Black  Measles,  Water  Berries,  and 
Related  Vine  Troubles. 

Fruit  Beverage  Investigations. 

Gum  Diseases  of  Citrus  Trees  in  Cali- 
fornia. 

Preliminary  Yield  Tables  for  Second 
Growth  Redwood. 

Dust  and  the  Tractor  Engine. 

The  Pruning  of  Citrus  Trees  in  Cali- 
fornia. 

Fungicidal  Dusts  for  the  Control  of 
Bunt. 

Turkish  Tobacco  Culture,  Curing  and 
Marketing. 

Methods  of  Harvesting  and  Irrigation 
in  Relation  to  Mouldy  Walnuts. 

Bacterial  Decomposition  of  Olives  dur- 
ing Pickling. 

Comparison  of  Woods  for  Butter  Boxes. 

Browning  of  Yellow  Newtown  Apples. 

The  Relative  Cost  of  Yarding  Small 
anti  Large  Timber. 

The  Cost  of  Producing  Market  Milk  and 
Butterfat  on  246  California  Dairies. 

Pear  Pollination. 

A  Survey  of  Orchard  Practices  in  the 
Citrus  Industry  of  Southern  Cali- 
fornia. 

Results  of  Rice  Experiments  at  Cor- 
tena,    1923. 

Sun-Drying  and  Dehydration  of  Wal- 
nuts. 

The  Cold  Storage  of  Pears. 

Studies  on  the  Nutritional  Disease  of 
Poultry  Caused  by  Vitamin  A  De- 
ficiency. 


CIRCULARS 

No.  No. 

70.   Observations    on    the    Status    of    Corn  155. 

Growing  in  California.  157. 

87.   Alfalfa.  160. 

111.  The  Use  of  Lime  and  Gypsum  on  Cali-  161. 

fornia  Soils.  164. 

113.   Correspondence  Courses  in  Agriculture.  165. 
117.  The    Selection    and    Cost    of    a    Small 

Pumping  Plant.  166. 

127.  House  Fumigation.  167. 

129.   The  Control  of  Citrus  Insects.  170. 
136.  Meliletus    indica    as    a    Green-Manure 

Crop  for  California.  172. 

144.    Oidium  or  Powdery  Mildew  of  the  Vine.  173. 

151.  Feeding  and  Management  of  Hogs. 

152.  Some  Observations  on  the  Bulk  Hand-  174. 

ling  of  Grain  in  California.  178. 

154.   Irrigation   Practice   in   Growing  Small  179. 
Fruit  in  California. 


Bovine  Tuberculosis. 

Control  of  the  Pear  Scab. 

Lettuce  Growing  in  California. 

Potatoes  in  California. 

Small  Fruit  Culture  in  California. 

Fundamentals   of   Sugar    Beet   Culture 

under  California  Conditions. 
The  County  Farm  Bureau. 
Feeding  Stuffs  of  Minor  Importance. 
Fertilizing  California  Soils  for  the  1918 

Crop. 
Wheat  Culture. 
The    Construction    of    the    Wood-Hoop 

Silo. 
Farm  Drainage  Methods. 
The  Packing  of  Apples  in  California. 
Factors    of    Importance    in    Producing 

Milk  of  Low  Bacterial  Count. 


CIRCULARS—  {Continued) 


No. 

184. 

190. 

193. 

198. 

199. 

202. 

203. 
205. 
208. 

209. 
210. 
212. 
214. 

215. 
217. 

219. 
220. 
228. 
230. 

231. 
232. 

233. 
234. 

235. 

236. 


237. 


238. 
239. 


240. 
241. 


242. 
243. 


244. 


A  Flock  of  Sheep  on  the  Farm. 

Agriculture  Clubs  in  California. 

A  Study  of  Farm  Labor  in  California. 

Syrup  from  Sweet  Sorghum. 

Onion  Growing  in  California. 

County   Organizations   for   Rural   Fire 

Control. 
Peat  as  a  Manure  Substitute. 
Blackleg. 
Summary  of  the  Annual  Reports  of  the 

Farm  Advisors  of  California. 
The  Function  of  the  Farm  Bureau. 
Suggestions  to  the  Settler  in  California. 
Salvaging  Rain-Damaged  Prunes. 
Seed  Treatment  for  the  Prevention  of 

Cereal  Smuts. 
Feeding  Dairy  Cows  in  California. 
Methods   for   Marketing  Vegetables   in 

California. 
The  Present  Status  of  Alkali. 
Unfermented  Fruit  Juices. 
Vineyard  Irrigation  in  Arid  Climates. 
Testing   Milk,    Cream,    and   Skim  Milk 

for  Butterfat. 
The  Home  Vineyard. 
Harvesting    and    Handling    California 

Cherries  for  Eastern   Shipment. 
Artificial  Incubation. 
Winter  Injury  to  Young  Walnut  Trees 

during  1921-22. 
Soil  Analysis  and  Soil  and  Plant  Inter- 
relations. 

The  Common  Hawks  and  Owls  of  Cali- 
fornia   from    the    Standpoint    of    the 

Rancher. 
Directions  for  the  Tanning  and  Dress- 

of  Furs. 
The  Apricot  in  California. 
Harvesting  and  Handling  Apricots  and 

Plums  for  Eastern  Shipment. 
Harvesting    and    Handling    Pears    for 

Eastern   Shipment. 
Harvesting  and  Handling  Peaches  for 

Eastern   Shipment. 
Poultry  Feeding. 
Marmalade  Juice  and  Jelly  Juice  from 

Citrus  Fruits. 
Central  Wire  Bracing  for  Fruit  Trees. 


No. 
245. 
247. 
248. 

249. 
250. 

251. 


252. 
253. 
254. 

255. 

256. 
257. 
258. 
259. 
260. 

261. 
262. 
263. 
264. 

265. 
266. 

267. 

268. 

269. 
270. 
271. 
272. 

273. 
275. 

276. 

277. 

278. 


Vine  Pruning  Systems. 

Colonization  and  Rural  Development. 

Some  Common  Errors  in  Vine  Pruning 
and  Their  Remedies. 

Replacing  Missing  Vines. 

Measurement  of  Irrigation  Water  on 
the  Farm. 

Recommendations  Concerning  the  Com- 
mon Diseases  and  Parasites  of 
Poultry  in  California. 

Supports   for  Vines. 

Vineyard  Plans. 

The  Use  of  Artificial  Light  to  Increase 
Winter  Egg  Production. 

Leguminous  Plants  as  Organic  Fertil- 
izer in   California  Agriculture. 

The  Control  of  Wild  Morning  Glory. 

The  Small-Seeded  Horse  Bean. 

Thinning  Deciduous  Fruits. 

Pear  By-products. 

A  Selected  List  of  References  Relating 
to  Irrigation  in  California. 

Sewing  Grain   Sacks. 

Cabbage  Growing  in  California. 

Tomato  Production  in  California. 

Preliminary  Essentials  to  Bovine  Tuber- 
culosis Control. 

Plant  Disease  and  Pest  Control. 

Analyzing  the  Citrus  Orchard  by  Means 
of  Simple  Tree  Records. 

The  Tendency  of  Tractors  to  Rise  in 
Front;   Causes  and  Remedies. 

Inexpensive  Lavor-saving  Poultry  Ap- 
pliances. 

An  Orchard  Brush  Burner. 

A  Farm  Septic  Tank. 

Brooding  Chicks  Artificially. 

California  Farm  Tenancy  and  Methods 
of  Leasing. 

Saving  the  Gophered  Citrus  Tree. 

Marketable  California  Decorative 
Greens. 

Home  Canning. 

Head,  Cane,  and  Cordon  Pruning  of 
Vines. 

Olive  Pickling  in  Mediterranean  Coun- 
tries. 


12m-ll,'24 


